linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] PM: Improve handling of ACPI system state indicator (rev. 3)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200708292140.25212.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date:	Wed, 29 Aug 2007 21:40:24 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To:	"Moore, Robert" <robert.moore@...el.com>
Cc:	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"ACPI Devel Maling List" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Len Brown" <lenb@...nel.org>,
	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>,
	"pm list" <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm 3/3] PM: Improve handling of ACPI system state indicator (rev. 3)

On Wednesday, 29 August 2007 18:54, Moore, Robert wrote:
> No, it's not safe to run the AML interpreter with interrupts disabled.

OK

> I don't have any problem with introducing finer granularity enter/exit
> sleep interfaces if they are required.
> 
> I would suggest that we rename things a bit however.
> 
> Currently:
> acpi_enter_sleep_state_prep
> acpi_enter_sleep_state_prep_late
> acpi_enter_sleep_state
> 
> acpi_leave_sleep_state_prep
> acpi_leave_sleep_state
> 
> I think we can truncate and clarify:
> 
> acpi_sleep_setup1
> acpi_sleep_setup2
> acpi_sleep
> 
> acpi_wake_setup1
> acpi_wake

That's perfectly fine by me.  I'll update the 2/3 patch to use these names.

Also, I think we can remove acpi_enter_sleep_state_s4bios() entirely (in a
separate patch).

> acpi_set_sleep_state_indicator:
> 
> I'm not sure if we have any external interfaces that simply execute a
> control method, seems like overkill.
> 
> Please give me more information as to why _SSI needs to be moved (other
> than executing it after _BFS)

The _SST after _BFS is okay, but the invocation of _SST in acpi_wake()
(currently acpi_leave_sleep_state) is problematic, since it causes the
indicator to be set to "working" during hibernation, before the image is
saved.  Thus, during hibernation _SST shouldn't be called from acpi_wake().

For this reason, I thought it would be a good idea to call _SST from a separate
routine that might be invoked by higher level functions as desired.

Greetings,
Rafael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/